At this point, it seems as though Intel has just about everything in the world going right for them. They're getting a lot of money, their CPUs are in just about every computer, and they have had the best products on the market for the past several months. However, AMD and the European Union don't feel like Intel got this success in a legitimate manner. And so, the European Union sent law enforcement agents to do surprise raids. The raids being sent out are searching for one thing in particular: hard evidence that Intel pressured retail stores to avoid AMD-based products. These charges are added on to similar monopoly charges already put upon Intel by the European Union.Source: Neowin.net

Intel was already "missing" a lot of stuff from the ongoing lawsuit here since 2005. Ghost is right, the evidence has long been destroyed and I'm sure everyone has been severely threatened about talking.

Why does everyone want intel to fail? I understand they are a huge cooperation and nobody likes a monopoly, but their products are top-o-the-line. If they are hurt, that won't necessarily help amd, and it certainly won't help us b/c we will have to sacrafice the tech. And why are we even so sure that they were using unethical business practices? It could be AMD is pressuring for this to take credibility away from intel. Just make a better product, or one that can compete. Then the consumer has their choice and everybody wins.

I would personally hate if Intel got shut down or sued for a substantial amount of money, mainly because I use all Intel products (not that I don't like AMD, it's just that Intel is what I've always had). However, one should keep in mind that a company like Intel is getting into the shady news sector with stuff like this happening. People don't just raid your offices unless they are more than certain they will find something.

There is always a point when a company steps out of line, and it's just a matter of time before Intel gets caught (not that I want Intel caught).

by: farlex85Why does everyone want intel to fail? I understand they are a huge cooperation and nobody likes a monopoly, but their products are top-o-the-line. If they are hurt, that won't necessarily help amd, and it certainly won't help us b/c we will have to sacrafice the tech. And why are we even so sure that they were using unethical business practices? It could be AMD is pressuring for this to take credibility away from intel. Just make a better product, or one that can compete. Then the consumer has their choice and everybody wins.

Even with the investigations here in the US, AMD has nothing to do with it - these are 3rd party investigations where someone came along and said "Hey! I smell bullshit!"

We all know Intel won't fall - even if evidence was ever turned up, and they lost against any charges brought against them by an organization - but, what we could see, though, especially here in the US, would be for a judge to impose a fee on Intel for an amount equivalent to any potential income AMD had lost out on, and impose that said fee be turned over to AMD to reconcile the issue. Intel would get a slap on the wrist, some bad publicity, and then go back to business as normal - the revenue boost to AMD would really be beneficial to them in helping them get back on their feet and stable.

Asides, it's human nature to assume a business that single-handedly dominates it's market of practicing unethical business practices. How many other big-wig companies have been accused of it, and how many have been proven of it? It hurts competition, and poor competition hurts the consumers. Markets where companies are fairly equal from one to the next, all show similar products and similar pricing.

by: farlex85Why does everyone want intel to fail? I understand they are a huge cooperation and nobody likes a monopoly, but their products are top-o-the-line. If they are hurt, that won't necessarily help amd, and it certainly won't help us b/c we will have to sacrafice the tech. And why are we even so sure that they were using unethical business practices? It could be AMD is pressuring for this to take credibility away from intel. Just make a better product, or one that can compete. Then the consumer has their choice and everybody wins.

You haven't been in the loop for that last 15 yrs, huh?

This is a piece of crappy article I wrote for school a while back:

"Without a new architecture or any option to reclaim face and performance, Intel tightened their choke hold on the CPU industry by creating/increasing “incentives” and/or strong arming nearly every PC manufacturer with threats of price hikes to destroy their profit in an effort to exclude AMD from the market. In 2001, AMD enjoyed 21.8% market share, but by the 3rd quarter of 2002 they had slipped to 11.6 %, and only climbing back to 21.4% as of January 2006, despite AMD’s lower cost and proven performance. Although these practices have been assumed and known for some time, AMD didn’t launch an attack against Intel until 2005. " (and that led into Japan's FTC lawsuit, etc - and I know I can't write haha)

Now, If you recall how good the Athlon XPs were, how can one surmize that the extreme loss of market share was due to AMD (or other non-intel reasons)? Especially, since AMD was climbing vigorously and it just so happens that intel was losing significant share. There was a major war campaign against AMD. Intel had to stop them in their tracks or risk losing their monopoly. They're no different than any other massive corporation ( also see their treatment of Chinese workers).

by: Musselsthe athlon 64 was the great one, the athlon XP was merely 'good' (barton aside, they ran damned hot. this WAS pre-prescott remember)

64 was of course much better, but all of the Pentium 4s were crap (except at what, mp3 and video encoding haha).

My XP 2100+ (1.8 ghz) stomped the 2.8 intels in most things. It was sad. The old thoroughbreds were pretty toasty (had a 1.4, but she was a beast), but the XPs weren't bad on heat, a tad warm I'll admit. The real benefit was price. That was just insult to injury on intel.

I don't remember exactly when this started happening, but intel started using 1 lb heatsinks with them. Maybe it was with the 3.0s. Either way, that's insane and those earlier 4s weren't exactly chilly running either haha. It was just the olden times haha. The manuf. processes just weren't that great comparatively. We're really spoiled today.

by: TheGuruStud64 was of course much better, but all of the Pentium 4s were crap (except at what, mp3 and video encoding haha).

My XP 2100+ (1.8 ghz) stomped the 2.8 intels in most things. It was sad. The old thoroughbreds were pretty toasty (had a 1.4, but she was a beast), but the XPs weren't bad on heat, a tad warm I'll admit. The real benefit was price. That was just insult to injury on intel.

I still have a few 478 P4's around, and price was indeed the key. AMD was faster per MHz (but they didnt OC to well til the bartons), and intel cranked the prices up for no real reason.

I would personally hate if Intel got shut down or sued for a substantial amount of money, mainly because I use all Intel products

At least you are honest about it. Step one is admitting the problem, step two involves you getting rid of your intel rig and/or rigs and buying/putting together a nice AMD platform. :)

And why are we even so sure that they were using unethical business practices?

Anyone who defends Intel in matters such as these is either is too young to remember or ignorant of how Intel conducted business in the "good ole days", aka 1990s. Back when old CPUs increased in price as they aged, as it was back in Pentium III, pre Athlon-XP era. I can still remember sub 1Ghz PIII CPUs steadily increasing in price on a weekly basis, and then Athlon T-Bird CPU's hit the market. PIII's became bargain bin CPU's overnight.

Let's face it, if it wasn’t for the pressure AMD put on Intel with it's K7/K8 architecture, right now we would be buying $600 single-core 300Watt Intel Pentium 5 CPUs or something.

NOTE: There is a segment of population both in North America and EU that have serious issues with ANY economic decision any governing EU body or branch of EU comes up with. Some people have no problem with 18th century "yankee economics", even if it goes against their own interests.

by: AddSubAt least you are honest about it. Step one is admitting the problem, step two involves you getting rid of your intel rig and/or rigs and buying/putting together a nice AMD platform. :)

Anyone who defends Intel in matters such as these is either is too young to remember or ignorant of how Intel conducted business in the "good ole days", aka 1990s. Back when old CPUs increased in price as they aged, as it was back in Pentium III, pre Athlon-XP era. I can still remember sub 1Ghz PIII CPUs steadily increasing in price on a weekly basis, and then Athlon T-Bird CPU's hit the market. PIII's became bargain bin CPU's overnight.

Let's face it, if it wasn’t for the pressure AMD put on Intel with it's K7/K8 architecture, right now we would be buying $600 single-core 300Watt Intel Pentium 5 CPUs or something.

NOTE: There is a segment of population both in North America and EU that have serious issues with ANY economic decision any governing EU body or branch of EU comes up with. Some people have no problem with 18th century "yankee economics", even if it goes against their own interests.

Thats called competition. My first system was a Pentium 90, and i do recall those days - i also remember buying celerons and overclocking them, and i remember that AMD existed then as well... they just sucked. Companies set their own price for profit or loss, its how it is with all business. you cant blame intel for making money off a business, that money is what lets them develop new products - and they ARE owning AMD totally right now.

by: Musselsthe athlon 64 was the great one, the athlon XP was merely 'good' (barton aside, they ran damned hot. this WAS pre-prescott remember)

by: MusselsI still have a few 478 P4's around, and price was indeed the key. AMD was faster per MHz (but they didnt OC to well til the bartons), and intel cranked the prices up for no real reason.

wrong and wrong.

first the tbird and palimino cores ran HOT AS HELL, the tbred-A cores ran warm but not super hot, they did not oc well.

the tbred-b cores overclocked like banshees, the 1700+ was the most popular athlon xp ever made for that reasion, u could take it to 2.3+ with ease using air cooling.

the barton 2500 was 2nd most popular overclockers chip, well the unlocked version was anyway ;)

as to heat, the tbird wasnt super hot, it was the first athlon socketA, it was at least in my exp on par with intels chips for heat, problem was the stock coolers amd gave out where the suq and intel was giving out larger ones.

the palimino chips(first XP's) where hot suckers, i got a 1900+ here that puts out the btu's like a p4 preshot!!!!.

the k8 was not a huge step from the k7 really, the design was very simlar when it came to core, just some refinments and onboard memory controler, the sse unit was updated(thank god) but really clock for clock they where VERY close.

im an old skool amd user, i have owned intels to be sure, infact a short list of my systems.

i also had a couple diffrent p4's i got as tradeins or was given in that time, i was never impressed witht he perf of any of the p4 systems i setup, infact i was much less then impressed by the EE system i setup for a buddy the ONLY thing it was good for was encoding, good thing thats what he wanted it for.

basickly i have owned or setup damn neer anything x86 you can find :)

oh and i have owned to dec alpha systems one was a packard bell dual 500 system!!!(only packard bell that didnt suck ass!!!)

worst system i ever saw, those 423 p4's with pc133 ram........they made me want to cry......still do really.....

by: Morgothintel is not doing wrong! the a leading ! And intel is leaving FSB in the next architecture the gowing for Quikpath that sould be faster then amd Hypertransport link stuff

it wont be any faster, if it is it wont be put to any real use, HT2 was never used to its full capacity and we are now at ht3.......so really it dosnt matter, the only thing intel is doing with this move is effectivly admiting amd was right and they where wrong when they said that it was best to keep the memory controler on the chipset and not the cpu.

yeah, like i said, they have had to admit that imc is the way to go, after they badmouthed the idea when amd started using it.

it really should help intel get around the problems they been having like to little fsb bandwith for their high end chips due to the cores using the FSB to talk to eachother as well as the fsb moving all that other data.......really becomes like a freeway at rushhour :P